Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE3D DAY OF JANUARY201413TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 337 of 2014 (N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SASIKUMARAN, S/O. RAJAMMA KRISHNAVILASAM PUTHEN VEEDU VELICODE, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695001.
3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HOSPITAL JUNCTION NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.
4. SADASIVAN ASSARY, S/O. NARAYANAN ASSARY THEKKATHIL VEEDU, MARANALLOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAFEEK V.K. BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 337/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM AWARD DATED2001.2004 IN I.A. NO. 50637/2003 IN OP(MV) NO. 921/2003 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD DATED2510.2008 IN OP(MV) NO. 921/2003 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE E.P. NO. 244/2011 IN OP(MV) NO. 921/2003 FILED BY THE3D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED1608.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 337 OF2014------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 interim award for `25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was satisfied by the third respondent Insurance Company. But the third respondent was absolved from any liability under Ext.P2 final award passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ext.P2 award concludes as follows: "14. In the result, the application is allowed and an award is passed in favour of the applicant for Rs.54,275/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand two hundred and seventy five only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from 30.06.03, the date of the application till the date of realization, less Rs.25,000/- covered by interim award, if paid or deposited. The 1st respondent is directed to produce crossed cheques for Rs.872.50 towards court fee in the name of the MACT and for the balance in the name of the applicant, both within one month from the date of this award. The 3rd respondent is permitted to execute the award against the 1st respondent for realization of the interim award of Rs.25,000/- already paid to the applicant herein. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs." 2 WP(C) No. 337/2014 2. The claimant has been awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the total sum of `54,275/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand two hundred and seventy five only) from the date of application till the date of realisation. Necessarily the interim award of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) would carry the same rate of interest from the date of deposit till realisation from the petitioner. This precisely has been claimed in Ext.P3 execution petition put in by the third respondent insurance company which has resulted in Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 5% collection charges has also been included therein and the total amount claimed including interest at 7.5% from the date of deposit till realisation cannot be faulted with.
3. I however permit the petitioner to pay the amount demanded under Ext.P4 notice in six equal monthly instalments starting from 01.02.2014. The coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P4 notice shall be put on hold if the petitioner complies with the conditions in time. The coercive steps shall surge ahead if the petitioner commits default in the payment of anyone of the 3 WP(C) No. 337/2014 instalments as directed. Needless to say that the petitioner shall pay the collection charges directly to the second respondent as envisaged under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd